Are Biblical Tongues a Personal Prayer Language?

In this post I propose to present my exegetical case for believing that the tongues referred to in 1 Corinthians 14 (and in Acts) are not necessarily known human languages used to proclaim the gospel to native speakers of that language, but may also be what has been labeled a private prayer language (though I believe the term personal prayer language is a more accurate description). I am not proposing an exhaustive treatment of this question here, but rather one which I believe will be sufficient to demonstrate the validity of my case. Neither am I presenting here a defense for the continuation of supernatural gifts in general, as I (and others) have already done this elsewhere. I will try to keep my presentation as simple as possible, building my argument on a series of logical steps.

1. Some people claim that Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians 14 was to correct the Corinthian believers for using a spurious gift of tongues, one which was not an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe this position is untenable for the following reason. If the tongues the Corinthians believers were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit, the logical response of Paul would almost certainly have been to directly inform them that this was the case, and to either command them to stop or discourage them from practicing this spurious gift of the Spirit. However, Paul nowhere says that the gift they were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Spirit and nowhere tells the Corinthian believers to quit practicing it altogether. Instead, he tells them:

a. “I want you all to speak in tongues” 1 Cor. 14:5

b. “One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:13

c. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” 1 Cor. 14:18

d. “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:27

e. “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.” 1 Cor. 14:28

f. “Do not forbid speaking in tongues.” 1 Cor. 14:39

The logical conclusion is that the practice of the Corinthian believers was not invalid in and of itself, but was rather generally being used in the wrong context: in a public church meeting. There was one circumstance, though, in which the practice of tongues was permitted in a public church meeting: whenever there was someone present who was able to interpret what was being said.

*David Worley has suggested in a comment on another post that there may be some significance to the fact that, in 1 Cor. 14, Paul sometimes refers to “tongues” (plural) and “a tongue” (singular), and that it appears that he uses the term “tongues” when referring to the legitimate use of the spiritual gift and “a tongue” when referring to an invalid use of a spurious gift. A careful analysis of each of the uses of the terms “tongues” and “a tongue” in 1 Cor. 14 renders this hypothesis unsustainable, though, as there are occasions in which the term “tongues” is used to refer to something Paul discourages (e.g. 14:6, 23) and the term “a tongue” is used to refer to something Paul allows (e.g. 14:13), and even encourages (e.g. 14:26–27).

2. If we are in agreement that the tongues the Corinthians believers were practicing was not some spurious, invalid gift, then we are faced with another option. Were the Corinthian believers using their authentic gift of tongues to speak in known human languages (though not known to them by natural human means) in the church meetings in Corinth?

If this were the case, several things seem clear.

First of all, those practicing this gift did not understand what they were saying. This seems clear from 1 Cor. 14:2—“no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit”; 1 Cor. 14:9—“speech that is not intelligible”; 1 Cor. 14:11—“if I do not know the meaning of the language”; and 1 Cor. 14:14—“my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Also, if they did understand, there would be no need to pray that they might interpret (1 Cor. 14:13).

Secondly, it appears that no one in the congregation understood what they were saying either. The general argument of 1 Cor. 14 has to do with tongues speaking that is not understood by the congregation at large. But it also appears clear that, not only the congregation at large, but every single individual in the congregation, was unable to understand the tongues being referenced, because if someone did understand them, they would have been able to interpret for the rest.

This leads us to ask, if someone had the supernatural ability to speak in a known language, but no one—neither the speaker, nor the congregation—understood what was being said, what might possibly motivate the speaker to use his/her gift in public? If they knew that the purpose of tongues was for communicating the gospel to the unsaved, yet they knew, at the same time, there was no one there who would be able to understand their message in tongues, what possible motivation might they have for giving it anyway?

3. The only plausible answer I can think of to this question is that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life. It was a practice that edified them (1 Cor. 14:4) and helped them to express their thanks to God (1 Cor. 14:16–17), even though they did not understand the specific content of what they were saying. It seemed only natural to them to pray in the same way in public they sometimes did in private. What they were failing to take into account, though, was the fact that the practice of their gift of tongues in the church meetings was not edifying but was, rather, distracting to other people in the congregation. This is why Paul tells them that, unless there was someone present who was able to interpret, they should reserve the practice of their gift for their personal prayer life and not for displaying it in public.

That, in essence, is the substance of my argument. In what follows, I will seek to tie up a few loose ends.

Does this mean their personal prayer language was a known human language, an angelic language, or an ecstatic utterance of some type of another?

I think the answer to this question is largely irrelevant, since whatever the answer to this question, no one understood what they were saying. Even if they were praying, for example, in Swahili, it amounted to the same thing as praying in an angelic language, or a supernaturally inspired “ecstatic utterance.” Either way, they were also edifying themselves (1 Cor. 14:4)—something, which, according to Jude 20, is not necessarily a negative thing—and they were giving thanks with their spirit (1 Cor. 14:16–17).

Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 14:22 say that the purpose of tongues is not personal edification, but rather “as a sign to unbelievers”?

Actually, no, it does not say that this is the purpose of tongues. It does say that at least one of the functions of tongues is as a sign to unbelievers, but nowhere does it say that this is the purpose of tongues. Also, to understand 1 Cor. 14:22 in context, it is necessary to cross-reference the text Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 14:21: “In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”

The Old Testament source of this quote, with a little fuller context, is Isaiah 28:11­–13: “For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people, to whom he has said, ‘This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose’; yet they would not hear. And the word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”

The clear implication is that the sign function of tongues was not as an aid to help people who spoke a foreign language to understand the proclamation of the gospel, but rather as a stumbling block, something that would cause them to “fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”

Exactly what this means in the New Testament context of tongues I am uncertain. I think a possible clue is found in Acts 2:12–13: “Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ Some, however, made fun of them and said, ‘They have had too much wine.’” What is clear, however, is that the so-called purpose of tongues as a tool for proclaiming the gospel is almost certainly not what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 14:22.

But wasn’t tongues used as a means to communicate the gospel to the lost whenever it was referred to in the book of Acts?

Once again, actually, no.

In Acts 2, it never says that those speaking in tongues used their gift of tongues in order to communicate the gospel to those who could not otherwise understand what was being said. Actually, it says the people heard the Jerusalem believers “declaring the wonders of God in [their] own tongues” (Acts 2:11). That sounds to me more like prayers of praise and worship than evangelistic proclamation. When it came time to actually clearly explain the gospel message, it was not the use of tongues that facilitated the task, but rather the preaching of Peter, who stood up, together with the other eleven apostles, and addressed the entire crowd in one language they apparently all understood: either Greek, or possibly Hebrew or Aramaic.

In Acts 10:44–48, the second reference to the practice of tongue in the book of Acts, it is not even the evangelizers who are speaking in tongues, but rather the new believers, and they are not preaching the gospel to others, but rather “extolling God.”

In Acts 19:1–7, the third and final instance of speaking in tongues in the book of Acts, once again, it is not Paul, the gospel proclaimer, who speaks in tongues, but rather the new believers, who, when Paul lays his hands on them, “began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”

In other words, the evidence from the book of Acts, just like the evidence in 1 Corinthians 14, seems to point more toward tongues as a personal prayer language than as a tool for proclaiming the gospel to those who otherwise could not understand.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Subscribe

Notify of

John Wylie

David,

With all due respect I cannot disagree more with you on your Acts 2 explanation. When you have preached or taught have you ever expounded upon the wonderful works of God? It is my goal to do that every week. As you know in that same chapter while addressing the crowd Peter tells them that what they had just witnessed was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2. And Peter quotes in Acts 2:18 “even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” Prophesy is a little different than simply praying and praising, it included also proclamation, pardon the alliteration :).

And then two things that need to be mentioned from 1 Corinthians 14. 1.) What Paul is conveying in that chapter is that prophecy is a superior gift to speaking in tongues for various reasons given in that chapter. 2.) The Isaiah text tells us that tongues were a sign specifically to Jews because they were the recipients of the Isaiah prophecy. And 1 Corinthians 14 tells us that tongues were a sign to unbelievers. Of what? Well Isaiah is a dual fulfillment prophecy as what Isaiah was alluding to was the coming Babylonian captivity and when they heard the foreign tongues of their invaders they would know that the judgment of God had come. Fast forward to the NT if indeed tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews of impending judgment, it must have been the coming judgment of 70 AD. (BTW I am not a Preterist, but I do believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is significant to Bible prophecy) I personally believe both Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are the same gift and the gift was for proclamation and as a sign of judgment against the Jews for rejecting their Messiah.

This is just where I disagree with you, but no disrespect is intended.

If the only evidence we had was that on the day of Pentecost the believers “declared the wonderful works of God,” there may be more merit to your argument here. The phrase is somewhat ambiguous. And, in some senses, our prayers can have an evangelistic edge to them, and our evangelistic preaching can be done in a spirit and dynamic of prayer. But it still does not appear that tongues were necessary to help the believer to more clearly explain the gospel message.

Also, in the passage from Joel that Peter quoted, it does indeed say “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” It also says “your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” and that God would “show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood.”Are you arguing that all these things were happening when the believers were speaking in tongues? It seems to me your looking to Joel for support for your argument proves a little more than you are wanting to prove.

And, yes, biblically, prophecy and tongues often do go hand in hand (see Acts 19:6 and 1 Cor. 14). But that doesn’t mean they are the same thing. They are actually distinguished in 1 Cor. 12 as two separate gifts.

No argument from me on your point that prophecy is a superior gift to tongues and that is one of Paul’s main points in 1 Cor. 14. But I don’t think that says anything with regard to the argument I am making in my post.

And your exegetical insights regarding Isaiah may very well be on target as well. But, once again, I don’t see how that affects the weight of the argument I am making in my post.

Which of the three options given in my post do you feel best explains what the believers in Corinth were doing in their church meetings? Or do you believe there is a fourth option?

June 25, 2013 9:08 am

John Wylie

I think the second option is correct. That translated tongues just means languages. On the day of Pentecost when they spoke in tongues they spoke in known human languages. Also, it is clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that the problem was two fold: 1.) Too many people were trying to speak in tongues in the service so the number allowed had to be regulated and 2.) obviously people were trying to speak in tongues publicly without an interpreter so Paul told them to keep silent.

Now concerning the Isaiah passage, if indeed tongues were for a sign to the Jews of impending judgment to come it would indicate that tongues were not a private or personal gift but a public one.

And to interject a new thought, the whole concept of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is that the gifts were expressly designed to be others oriented. They were designed to edify others. Chapter 13 is an appeal to let agape love (always expressed in actions toward others) be the guiding principle in the application of the gifts.

June 25, 2013 11:02 am

John Wylie

Probably the answer to why they were trying to speak without an interpreter is that they were trying to promote self. Anyone who has been in the ministry very long has witnessed this going on in the church. In Texas we call this showing out.

1 Corinthians 14:26 “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”

I can see how the Corinthian believers may have been motivated to “show out.” That is certainly implied in the context of verses such as 1 Cor. 12:12-26 and 13:1-7. What I don’t really understand is, if tongues was a known language, and was intended to help communicate the gospel to speakers of that language, or to serve as a sign to unbelieving Jews, why they would have randomly chosen practicing this gift as a way to “show out.” If that were the case, it seems to me it would have been obvious to all they were out of place, and instead of “showing out” would have been a way of showing they didn’t have a clue. The scenario I have described in option #3 makes a lot more sense to me. They were still probably motivated somewhat by “showing out,” but they were doing it in a more sensible and plausible way, demonstrating the supposed spirituality of their personal devotional life in a context of interactive, participative worship, as the early church meetings appear to have been (see 1 Cor. 14:26).

Also, if the purpose of tongues was to help with communicating the gospel to the unsaved who spoke a different language, or to serve as a sign to unbelieving Jews, why in the world would Paul tell them to continue to practice this gift in a Christian church gathering two or three times a service–if there was an interpreter present?

I don’t see how one function of tongues being as “a sign to the Jews of impending judgment to come” necessarily says one thing or another about the possibility of them being used as a personal prayer language. If being “a sign to the Jews” is not the sole purpose of tongues, then that leaves room for other purposes as well. Could it not be both/and rather than either/or? Indeed, if the only purpose is to serve as a sign for the Jews, then that eliminates the purpose of edifying the church. As I see it, there were various purposes and functions of tongues, and we read into the text more than is intended when we try to limit it to one.

June 25, 2013 2:31 pm

John Wylie

David,

As always I appreciate your very thought provoking response. But the very fact that tongues (languages) like all the other gifts were expressly for the edification of others is enough for me to exclude the thought of a personal or private prayer language. I personally cannot see what purpose would be served in praying in another language for the person praying especially if that person doesn’t understand what he is saying.

And yet millions of people around the world testify that that experience has been a great blessing in their life, and that that blessing has been turned into blessing and edification for the churches of which they are a part, and to the Body of Christ at large. Always a lot of bathwater with the baby, though.

David, there are several points where I would disagree with you, but I think you bring out something important that many of us have missed concerning the gift of tongues — it was not a tool or gift for proclaiming the gospel to those who otherwise could not understand. I wrote on Tongues — an evangelistic tool? back in 2007 when this was a hot topic. In the 3 historical cases in the book of Acts, the preachers were able to communicate with the hearers in a common language and did not need the gift of tongues to do so. We need to come to understand this common ground as a basis to begin to discuss the issue.

Tongues as a personal prayer language being a component of Christian faith and practice is not a trivial thing. If prayer is such an indispensable part of a believer’s life, a personal prayer language would necessarily be such as well and the lack thereof would naturally be seen as a significant deficiency.

So, is this matter not addressed in letters to the Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Romans; in the pastoral epistles, the letters of Peter, James, John, and Jude? Is this a legitimate and valuable Christian practice that disappeared only to be rediscovered and activated recently, or is there a long and consistent record of such?

My reading of the PPL phenomenon is that it is an experience that has necessitated a search for a biblical justification and rationale. I am somewhat ambivalent about it and do not wish to disparage any adherents, certainly not Jerry Rankin whom I greatly respect or any of my friends here.

i appreciate David’s serious treatment of the matter and will address some of his conclusions in a comment sometime later today.

You say, “If prayer is such an indispensable part of a believer’s life, a personal prayer language would necessarily be such as well and the lack thereof would naturally be seen as a significant deficiency.”

I don’t see why this needs to be the case. Paul goes to pains to say that tongues is the least of the gifts and that not everyone is gifted to speak in tongues.

Could you not turn it around and say that, if tongues is meant to be an aid for communicating the gospel, and “if evangelism is such an indispensable part of a believer’s life, evangelistic speaking in tongues would necessarily be such as well and the lack thereof would naturally be seen as a significant deficiency”?

Your use of Paul’s exclamation “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues” seems to argue against you here. I take some of Paul’s statements in this passage to be rhetorical, as do many interpreters.

Sorry…in a rush. I do appreciate your thoughtful posts.

June 25, 2013 11:10 am

parsonsmike

David,
I see no case being made for a private prayer language in 1st Cor. 14.

Rather, you posted these quotes:
Paul nowhere says that the gift they were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Spirit and nowhere tells the Corinthian believers to quit practicing it altogether. Instead, he tells them:

a. “I want you all to speak in tongues” 1 Cor. 14:5
b. “One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:13
c. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” 1 Cor. 14:18
d. “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:27
e. “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.” 1 Cor. 14:28
f. “Do not forbid speaking in tongues.” 1 Cor. 14:39

None of those proves or necessarily even hints of a non-public use of tongues.
Now as to your point 2., let me ask this question: How is tongues a sign for unbelievers?
Certainly it is not a sign if there is disorder, a cacophony of noise. The unbeliever thinks the people mad. But nevertheless it is a sign to the unbeliever if if there is order. What is this order but only two or three uttering and they with interpreters. Now how is the gift of tongues a sign to the unbeliever if he only understands the tongue by the interpretation?

Rather the interpretation in and of itself becomes prophecy and thus the edification of the body who now can give their “amen”. And the interpretation/prophecy also fills another role: “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.”

To your point 4., verse 4 does not say anything about a private prayer but rather simply states that when a person properly exercises their gift that person is edified. The other verses say:
“13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.”

Now he is edified in the spirit [v.4] but his mind remains unfruitful. It remains unfruitful unless there is an interpretation in which case he along with everyone else is edified in the mind/understanding. So Paul tells him to pray for interpretation [v.13].

And by looking on we read: “27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. ”
Thus one should keep silent unless he has assurance there will be an interpretation.

The only caveat to the private prayer language would be then a silent praying at church when no interpretation is available.

There is nothing there at all about praying when alone aloud or silently.
Although neither is it forbidden directly, but there is simply no Biblical basis for it.

I’m trying to understand the main thrust of what you are saying. Are you agreeing with part of my argument, or disagreeing with all of it?

It seems you may be saying there is nothing in 1 Cor. 14 to indicate anything to do with a personal prayer language. But perhaps that is not the point you are making.

In any case, here are the places where I see a reference to a personal prayer language in 1 Cor. 14:

1. v. 2. “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God.”

Speaking to God is prayer, is it not?

2. vv. 14-17. “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.”

It seems the whole content of these verses has to do with praying in tongues (or perhaps, in v. 15, singing in tongues as well).

Now, if you want to say Paul’s point was that they should not be praying in tongues, then we are back at my point #1 in my post. Why did he not just come and tell them that, then?

3. v. 18-19. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

Here is where the personal aspect comes into play. Paul is saying that, unless there is interpretation, it is better to practice tongues (i.e. prayer language, as I understand it) in private than in public.

4. “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.”

Once again, the idea here is that, if there is no interpreter present, it is better to use one’s prayer language in private and not in public.

David I think you are spot on! The reason Paul gives rules of tongues in worship (1Cor 14) is they were using them there. Not because that is where it was always supposed to happen.
Plus, it is clear that when one speaks in a tongue they speak to God. (1Cor 14:2)

But here’s the deal, after much consideration on this matter:
God has spoken in these last times thru His Son (Heb 1), His Son ascended to Heaven and He sent the Spirit.
His Son continued to speak thru His Apostles. His Apostles died out.
Now the Spirit speaks through what the Son has spoken, The canon of scripture. There is no more place or need for continued revelation by the Spirit. (I’m not saying “That which is perfect has come.” I’m saying we don’t have lots of blank pages in the back of our bibles to include all the prophecies spoken since the apostolic age.)
If tongues is not that, but some ongoing manifestation of the spirit whereby the individual person is making ‘groanings’ that cannot be uttered, or extolling the great things of God. OK. I’m OK with that.
But as I began to realize it never built me up in faith or blessed me, I quit doing it. I didn’t know what I was saying. How can that edify? I think having the understanding is much more important. I didn’t see a need for the Spirit to make intercession thru my tongue. I think the God-head is perfectly capable of communicating without me.

Also, Never met a tongue talker who was holier for it that I could tell. (Though some are mature, ‘holy’ people.) But hey, I will not forbid to speak in tongues. That’s between them and God.
BUT if one speaks out in an unknown tongue in church, I will tell them that there is no interpreter for that message and they should just speak to God.

Now you only addressed the biblical basis for tongues and I went into the Q of continuance or cessation, but that always seems where this discussion ends up anyway. 😉

Thanks for the comment. Yes, continuationism and cessationism is a separate (but related) topic. We can discuss that on Dave Miller’s post, which is about that.

And I agree with you that “Never met a tongue talker who was holier for it that I could tell.” It is a spiritual gift, and it is God who sovereignly distributes the gifts as He chooses. Those with one gift are not necessarily more spiritual than those with other gifts.

Not at all. A Spiritual Gift is a manifestation of God’s grace in the life of a believer, enabling the believer to join God in the Kingdom work God has in mind for him. I maintain the bush pilot’s ability to put a plane on a 900′ grass strip in the jungles, so the missionary can do a work there, is as much a gift as that of the missionary himself.

It’s the use of the gift that makes it Spiritual, not just the nature of the gift itself.

Idolized? What gift hasn’t somebody idolized?

June 25, 2013 2:39 pm

Greg Harvey

I like the formulation you offer, Bob. Not the least because of the neat echo of the Greek “karis” (or charis) that shows up in both “grace” and in “gifts”. And lest we forget: that’s one of the words for “love” as echoed in the KJV use of the term “charity” to translate “agape”. And of these three–pistis, elpsis, agape–the greatest of these is agape.

Excellent illustration. Thanks for the clarification. Figured we were on the same page but I find it’s always better to flesh it out for greater clarity.

Blessings brother,

-Bob B.

June 25, 2013 3:51 pm

John Wylie

Bob C.

With all due respect there is only one thing that I can see that is wrong with your analysis, namely, the fact that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were unequivocally known languages. Act 2:7-8 “And they were astounded and astonished, saying, “Behold, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how do we hear, each one of us, in [our own native language]?” (LEB)

There were either 12, or 100 or so in the room, speaking in tongues. There seem to be 15 or so languages listed in the passage, which leads me to believe it was probably more than 12 people speaking them.

But we still have the problem of the verse which states each (singular) heard them (plural) speak in his own language. Dialect, even, which could vary within a given nationality.

If there were 100+ in the room, one standing outside would hardly say “I hear them speaking my language”, any more than you could understand what everyone was yelling at a football game.

If on the other hand, it was what Paul described as the language of angels, it makes sense that the gift of interpretation would also be manifested, which would account for the reason that some understood while the others were scornful.

It also wasn’t an evangelical message, as the hearers had to ask how to be saved, even after Peter’s sermon. So my take is it was purely praise, declaring the works of God, in an unknown language which some, but not all, hearers could interpret.

This would also explain why Paul’s admonitions in 1 Corinthians 14. Those folks didn’t need to just sit and praise God all evening. They needed to hear from God, via prophecy.

John: actually, that’s not a fact. We know that the listeners could verify that each person hearing could hear something in their own language. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that some of the tongues-speakers were speaking in angelic languages, which of course the listeners couldn’t have identified. We’re not told that each speaker was speaking a known tongue, only that each language represented among the listeners had someone speaking t.

June 25, 2013 8:08 pm

John Wylie

Bob C. and Ben C.,

With all due respect the only languages that the text explicitly says that they in fact spoke in were all known languages. While there may be room for your hypothesis, what we do know is that Galileans spoke in the known tongues of the dispersion.

With all due respect, the only thing we know for sure from the text of Acts 2 is that the hearers heard the believers speaking in their own languages. Some have posited the possibility that the miracle that occurred at Pentecost was a gift of hearing. In other words, what was coming out of the mouths of the believers were angelic languages or ecstatic utterances or something of the sort, and what the people in the crowd heard was their own native languages. I am not saying I necessarily agree with that. I think it is unlikely. But it is not quite as certain as you are making it out to be.

John, given the text, you *can’t* assert that only known tongues were spoken. Scripture records that the listeners testified that all of the languages represented among them were ‘covered’. By the nature of things, they *can’t* testify whether or not unknown languages were being spoken – how would they distinguish them from a known language they didn’t know? At best you can say that it is unknown whether unknown languages were spoken, but it is a mistake to assume that what is provably unknown can just be ignored.

June 25, 2013 9:56 pm

John Wylie

But Ben the only thing we can know for sure is that known languages were spoken on Pentecost. Anything else would at best be speculative and making an addition to the text.

June 25, 2013 10:05 pm

John Wylie

Seeing how that known languages are the only ones mentioned I feel pretty comfortable with that position. Didn’t we have an article on this blog that went in detail about an argument from silence?

June 25, 2013 10:13 pm

parsonsmike

Now what is the purpose of the gifts?
We read from chapter 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Verse 7:
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

The gift of tongues is not for personal good but for common good. In Romans 12, we see that point as Paul tells us:
4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; 7 if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; 8 or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Each use of the gift given is for others. Tongues is not mentioned here, but of tongues we read in 1 Cor. 14: 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers…

Now the context of chapter 14 is wholly in the place of corporate worship, the word “church” being used repeatedly. And even where it is not used expressly, it is properly interpreted that the context Paul is in and doesn’t leave is the church, even to the end of the chapter.

Thus in 1st Corinthians 14, there is no mandate for speaking [aloud or in silence] in tongues outside of the church, of the body, of fellowship together and this means no mandate to speak while one is physically alone in their prayer closet.

Is there anyplace else in the Bible where a tongue language is spoke about where we speak it while alone?
I know of known.

Which one of my three options do you think is the best explanation of 1 Cor. 14? Or do you feel there is a fourth option?

June 25, 2013 10:32 am

parsonsmike

David,
1 Cor 14 is Paul telling them how to properly use the gift of tongues in their worship together. From the way he writes to them, it seems that he is correcting them which means they were mis-using the gift, maybe as many do today.

Is there any place in the Scriptures that tells you that tongues is to be spoken privately? If not, then it is unScriptural to do so.

Paul says that he himself speaks in tongues more than all of the Corinthians put together (proof Paul was a southerner – he says “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you-all”). If, in church, Paul prefers speaking with his mind, then where in the world is he doing all of that tongues-speaking?

June 25, 2013 11:03 am

Frank L.

Ben, that is a very good observation, the bad Southern joke, notwithstanding.

If 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of prophetic messages in an unknown tongue, it does not make sense to tell them to stop after two and then prophecy in plain English thereafter. If, however, the speaking in tongues were only what it was specified to be in Acts 2 … declaring the wonders of God .. then it would make sense to tell them to limit that so they could get on to prophecy, which they needed at that time (not having the Bible as we do).

June 25, 2013 7:56 pm

Frank L.

“””The gift of tongues is not for personal good but for common good”””

If a person spends several hours a day praying in tongues for the church family, friends, and lost people, is that not a “common good?”

To answer no would suggest that “prayer is not a real” thing, like preaching.

Do you want to imply that?

June 25, 2013 8:03 pm

Don Johnson

Frank,

How does one pray for family, friends , and lost people if he has no idea of what he is praying?

I really appreciate your taking this task on here. Though I’m not persuaded by your points, I think you’ve done a good job of helping move the discussion along.

To chime in with parsonsmike and John Wylie above, I don’t see where your assumptions that this is a PPL are the best solution. You’re not exactly making an argument from silence, but you don’t have a clear-cut verse that tells us that we should have PPL’s. Instead, in the midst of Paul’s discussion of why prophecy is better than tongues and why there should be order in worship services, you’re building a case for something that is nowhere prescribed, so I find that hard to swallow.

I think the oddest defense you’ve given is the use of Acts 2. Here, you’ve actually acknowledged that this use of tongues (languages) was to speak to people in their own human languages. I will agree that perhaps we do need to think through whether tongues was STRICTLY missional – but the point still seems to be that the people heard it in their own language. I also do not agree with your assumption that they were hearing them pray, because “declaring the wonders of God” is what John Piper does every time he gets up to preach.

I think a better understanding of the purpose of tongues is rooted in God’s undoing of the divisions placed on humanity at the tower of Babel. This understanding allows for tongues not to be strictly focused on evangelism (though it could serve that purpose) but focuses our attention on how God is redeeming all mankind – people from every nation, tribe, and tongue.

In the end, the way it sounds like you would allow tongues to play out in your church would not cause me any problems. Therefore, as usual, we all have a great unity with one another that is rooted in Christ and just because we don’t agree on some of these finer points it shouldn’t prevent genuine fellowship and appreciation.

Again, thanks for pushing the discussion along. I’ve been greatly helped by all the comments and love all the brothers represented here.

I do not think Paul had any agenda to push, mandate, or encourage tongues, either privately or publicly. Though he does make a point in v. 39 that we should not forbid speaking in tongues.

His main agenda, though, is to correct abuses. The lessons we must learn about what tongues were are mostly be inference and from reading between the lines.

Once again, though, I don’t think the deductive evidence, in this regard, is scant. It seems to me, with regard to what was going on at Corinth, we can posit three different options (as I have done in my post).

I ask you, as I have asked the rest, which of the three seems most plausible? Or do you see a fourth option?

For now I would say I’d probably fall in a combination of options 1 and 2. I think there could have been false abuses of the gift because of the “miraculous” nature of it and fleshly idolizing of those that had the genuine gift. If this happened it would have compounded the problem by making people compete with one another within the worship service. I realize that’s more of a hypothesis on my part but I think that might be a fourth option which is a blend of 1 and 2.

And you have said a “mind-full”. It is going to take me some time to weigh it and see what you are getting at, and what the implications may be. Thanks for taking the time.

It appears to me that you are actually not on a “side”, but seeking to look at the issue in a fresh way. That

That approach takes me by surprise on Voices. Again, thanks.

June 25, 2013 6:20 pm

parsonsmike

2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues, a praising of God.

13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

If one prays silently in church via the gift of tongues, he is praying in his spirit and praising God.

If one has an interpreter and speaks aloud in church, he is praying to God and praising Him as well.

To assume that there is a while-alone-private-prayer-unknown-tongue-language is unsupported by the Bible. Everywhere in Acts where tongues is spoken, it is the presence of others and is out loud and meant to be heard.

Once again, I am not sure I understand exactly what you are getting at. It seems to me you are contradicting yourself. You are saying, if I understand you, that in 1 Cor. 14, Paul advocates praying silently in tongues in church, and that in Acts tongues is always out loud?

As I read 1 Cor. 14, Paul is saying that the tongues speakers should be silent in church, and should practice their gift (out loud) outside of church.

As to the occurrences in Acts all being out loud and public, that is one reason I do not prefer the term “private prayer language.” It was not always practiced in private. It is better to use the term “public prayer language.”

That should be “personal prayer language,” not “public prayer language.”

June 25, 2013 10:45 am

parsonsmike

David,
Outside?
The church is not a building. It is a gathering of two or more of the body.
In Acts it was only spoken out loud among others which always included brothers.
In 1st Cor. 14, Paul is telling them how to properly speak in tongues. But if there is no interpreter, to not speak in tongues but to pray quietly to themselves.
Nothing in Acts contradicts what Paul said in 1st Corinthians. Acts is more an historical account where all the details are not given. Corinthians is a letter with specific instructions.

David, dear brother, where is the Biblical mandate for a personal prayer language one speaks while alone?

As far as the rest of your previous comment, I don’t disagree with anything in it, but I don’t see how any of it goes against what I am trying to say.

June 25, 2013 11:06 am

parsonsmike

David,
your point 3 above:
. The only plausible answer I can think of to this question is that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life. It was a practice that edified them (1 Cor. 14:4) and helped them to express their thanks to God (1 Cor. 14:16–17), even though they did not understand the specific content of what they were saying –

What you are doing here, so it seems to me, is simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove and then fitting some thoughts from the Word around it. You are not giving evidence of a personal prayer language.

You set up the question and gave what you think is “The only plausible answer I can think of” and that is the “evidence” you rely on to declare that there is such a thing as a Biblical mandated private prayer language or “that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life.” It is an answer you supply, not one derived from the Word.

here is the question you asked: [part a]
This leads us to ask, if someone had the supernatural ability to speak in a known language, but no one—neither the speaker, nor the congregation—understood what was being said, what might possibly motivate the speaker to use his/her gift in public?

First, the question assumes that it is a known language. Whether it is or not, I don’t know, but I assume it is. Second, what motivates anyone to use their Holy Spirit given gift in public? because of their love for God! And this they desire to be obedient to Him.

But you instead replied: “The only plausible answer I can think of to this question is that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life.”

That assumes the gift was used in their personal prayer life. For the sake of discussion, let us say that it was or it wasn’t.
If it wasn’t then your assumption, which BTW has absolutely no Bible proof or basis for existence as a true godly action, is without any merit.
If it was, as i assume you and others might practice something like it today, it still doesn’t mean it was a godly act, certainly not a Biblical mandated act and thus Paul, by speaking in this letter of it use ONLY in the church, is giving us the ONLY mandate in the Bible for its usage.

GIFTS in general: [1st Cor. 12] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Gifts are for the common good [not personal edification]

TONGUES specifically: [1st Cor. 14] 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers. Thus not for private alone edification. if there is no interpreter, one is to be silent.

Now i just came across something I didn’t notice before:
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Who does he speak silently to: himself and God. But is he speaking in tongues silently?
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
He speaks mysteries to himself? Must be, for otherwise he knows what he is saying and could interpret it. For as you said:
“First of all, those practicing this gift did not understand what they were saying. This seems clear from 1 Cor. 14:2—“no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit”; 1 Cor. 14:9—“speech that is not intelligible”; 1 Cor. 14:11—“if I do not know the meaning of the language”; and 1 Cor. 14:14—“my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Also, if they did understand, there would be no need to pray that they might interpret (1 Cor. 14:13).”

But why speak to himself if he has no understanding? because he is not speaking to himself in the gift of tongues, but to himself and God in his own language.

Any way there is no Biblical mandate for a personal prayer language that one does alone, even if verse 27 means that while in church he prays silently in tongues.

I am not ignoring your comment. I have been mulling over how best to respond for a while now, but am having trouble wrapping my mind around everything you are saying. In part, it seems we may just be rehashing the same things we have already said. If there is a particular point you would really like me to respond to and you feel I have not yet responded adequately, let me know, and I will give it my best try.

June 25, 2013 2:47 pm

parsonsmike

David,
If we are rehashing, maybe it is me not getting the right thoughts on paper. It seems that you think there is evidence presented by you to prove that there is a private prayer language of the gift of tongues. I disputed that and I am waiting for >real< evidence that there is a private prayer language.

But to try to make the issue clear, let me point out these things:

1.] The gifts of the Spirit, according to Paul in 1st Corinthians 12 are for the common good. And according to 1st Peter 4:10 we are told: As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace… By definition then, a spiritual gift is to be used for others, and thus a private prayer language is not the gift of tongues.

2.] No where in the Bible, as far as I can tell, is there mention of a private prayer language in an unknown tongue. No Where. Thus there are these implications:
a} It should not be preached from the pulpit.
b} It should be discussed as true in our Sunday Schools.
c} It should not be taught as from God in our Bible studies.
It is not in the Bible so it is not Biblical.

3/] Whether tongues have ceased or not, I do not know, but there is NO private prayer language that exercises the gift of tongues. if any one thinks there is, please show me the Scriptures.

Regarding your point #1. I have heard this argument made numerous times. And I do not believe it is entirely without merit. But I think we are reading something more than is intended into Paul’s mind when we take what he says about the manifestation of the Spirit in the life of each member of the Body being for “the common good,” and turning that into a litmus test for the legitimacy of spiritual gifts. I don’t see how that is the argument he is trying to make. The argument is rather that we all have different gifts, but each gift, and each gifted member, being a part of the same body, is important to the growth and health of the body. We shouldn’t exalt one gift over and above another. Even so, many would testify that their personal prayer language, inasmuch as it edifies them, also better helps them to be of service to the Body at large, and thus does contribute to the common good. Admittedly, this is an indirect, rather than a direct, contribution. But then, so are the contributions of certain other gifts, such as, for example, evangelism. Evangelism is directed not to the existing Body, per se, but to those outside of the Body. But the ultimate consequence of the practice of the gift of evangelism is the building up of the Body, or “the common good.” I think a similar argument can be made for a personal prayer language.

Regarding your point #2. Neither is there any direct mention in the NT of the Trinity, at least, using that language. But that doesn’t mean that the NT doesn’t teach it. I have given, both in my post, and in the comments, my rationale for believing that a personal prayer language is in view in the Paul’s discussion of 1 Cor. 14. I think my reasoning is fairly clear, and it makes sense to me. Others seem to think so as well. If you don’t, there is not much else I can do about that. Perhaps it is something like the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Which one of us is truly seeing the emperor as he really is remains to be seen, though. 🙂

If I understand you correctly, your point #3 is just a rehash of your point #2. Is that not correct?

I laugh at my typo’s sometimes. That should be “Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor. 14,” not “the Paul’s discussion of 1 Cor 14.”

June 26, 2013 10:53 am

Frank L.

Parsonmike,

you said, “””Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers. Thus not for private alone edification. if there is no interpreter, one is to be silent”

I think this is a smokescreen. I don’t think most “sort of cessationists” really believe this. For example: how often have you heard someone give a message in tongues with an interpreter in a Southern Baptist church?

My experience: once.

Your verse also only applies to “one kind of tongue.” An ecstatic utterance in Acts was specifically said to be a witness that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles. No interpretation.

Again, if what you say is really a valid argument along the lines of Bart’s self-disclosure as a “sort of cessationist,” then we would see SBC pastors promoting your view.

We do not see this happening which leads me to believe this verse is offered more as presupposition than biblical principle.

Frank,
Well I have taken no position on whether tongues have ceased, so it is hardly right to lump me in with the cessationists.
Divers tongues could mean different-known-by-someone languages as opposed to unknown-by-any-human language or angel speak or whatever.
Acts doesn’t give us every detail of every event. Thus you assume there was no interpreter and/or you assume that the tongue used was unknown. But here is part of Peter’s retelling of the event:
Acts 15: 6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

How did Peter know they had the Holy Spirit? They spoke in tongues. When Peter and the others were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues on Pentecost was it known or unknown tongues? Known.
So why should Peter assume they had the Holy Spirit just because they spoke in a tongue that he, Peter, did not understand? Well what was mentioned in Acts 10 but this:
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Now how did Peter know they were exalting God? Either they spoke in a tongue Peter already knew, like say his native language, or there was interpretation. Either way the words spoken were interpreted.

Now if tongues have ceased, or if they think tongues have ceased,, why would SBC pastors promote the view I have put forth?
And if tongues have not ceased, why are they not promoting the use of the gift by setting forth a proper place in the timing of the service for its exercise?

Either way, the main point is that there is no Scriptural ground for a private prayer language to be used out side of fellowship. If you think th=ere is, show me the scriptures.

June 26, 2013 7:51 am

Frank L.

Good answer, David.

June 25, 2013 8:50 pm

volfan007

David Rogers…Adrian’s Son,

I love ya, Brother. I respect you. But again, I totally disagree with you on this subject. All the fellas in this comment thread, who’ve disagreed with you, have already expressed all the reasons that I would disagree with you…and expressed them far better than I ever could….I’ve never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier. So, I disagree with you, and Dwight, and Dave, and Alan, and some others on this subject….but, I still love yall in the Lord.

David, you’ve asked folks a couple of times which of the three options they believed or if there was a fourth. For my own understanding I’m trying to distill the three options down to basic statements, and I’ve come up with the following.

1. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were spurious, not actually a gift from the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2, 10 and 19.
2. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a gift to preach/speak in a known human language, but no one could understand them.
3. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a personal prayer language that had spilled over into the church context.

Does this represent fairly what you intend, or would you put the three options a little differently? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but trying to get them down to the lowest common denominator.

Thanks, David. I’ll quickly reference these three and may have opportunity to add more detail later.

1. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were spurious, not actually a gift from the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2, 10 and 19. I have rejected this option, though this was a common view I heard taught my of my earlier life. I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that some people might have faked something just “to get in on the action” — as some of the talking we might hear today that sounds like “hominy, hominy, hominy.” But Paul’s argument does not directly address spurious tongue-talking, and he does not define it in a way that we should think it is inherently different from the tongues that he spoke in or the tongues described in the book of Acts.
3. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a personal prayer language that had spilled over into the church context. I have also rejected this option, which seems like a practice looking for a biblical definition. Prayer is mentioned in 15-15, but Paul is not recommending praying in tongues, but rather in the spirit and understanding — which he indicates is not happening if one prays in tongues. I don’t think verse 2 invokes prayer, but rather the simple fact that if one speaks in a language that is not understood then only God knows what is being said (“since no one understands him”).

2. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a gift to preach/speak in a known human language, but no one could understand them. (That is, no one understood them in the context of the Corinthian Church worship services.) Number 2 comes closest to what I think, but I am not completely satisfied with it. This keeps in place a consistent definition of tongues throughout the NT, which makes more sense to me. This was something that could be interpreted, if an interpreter were present. What was spoken in the church should edify the church as a body and not just certain individuals. We should hope for gifts that build up the church rather call attention to ourselves.

I really appreciate you serious wrestling with what the text actually says.

Regarding #3, do you not think it is possible Paul is advocating both/and, not necessarily either/or? In other words, in church, it is best to pray with both the spirit and with understanding. And, outside church, there may be a time and place to pray with the spirit, even though it may not always be accompanied by understanding. That’s how I read it, though I admit v. 15 is a bit ambiguous.

David, I need to think about your both/and question, but initially I’d say that it doesn’t seem to me that Paul’s advocacy of praying with the spirit and with understanding is a situation-based or location-based admonition.

I have wrestled with these scriptures off and on for years. One reason is that I struggle to put the total of Paul’s instruction in a complete and consistent whole that seems to fit everything he is saying there and what we know about tongues from the book of Acts. I hope you won’t think me to presumptuous to link to a series of posts I made several years ago on Tongues, Cessation and the Holy Spirit. I think it could be useful to people not because I wrote it or that they will agree with me, but in that I have tried to compile most of the NT scriptures that relate to the subject (though some of it about the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a little peripheral to your discussion).

A few years back I purchased and read D. A. Carson’s Showing the Spirit, an exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. I’d highly recommend it to all who haven’t read it, even though I didn’t agree with all his conclusions and was even surprised by a few of them.

If you are still lurking, this post is the rehashing of what I was trying to communicate in the other comment stream, but, admittedly, didn’t do a very good job of. Hopefully this post communicates more clearly what I was trying to say.

I’d love to hear your response, especially which of the three scenarios (or a fourth one) seems more plausible to you.

Actually, this post (as well as Dwight’s post) root back, as I understand it, to the challenge/request you threw out back a number of months ago on another post for someone to come up with a defense of PPL, and not just general continuationism (if I recall correctly).

My schedule just allowed me time to read your post and the comment thread.

You articulate this subject matter with the clarity, depth of understanding, biblical accuracy, quality if life, and even the printed eloquence, that is reminiscent of your father. The only thing missing here is the alliteration of which your father did so well.

I am having my assistant to print your posts and when we have people in our congregation who want a better understanding of the discussion at hand; I will instruct my assistant to give them a copy of your posts to at least be a conversation starter, or to help them to know what it is that we believe about this subject.

Seriously, you and Alan Cross have penned much better explanations and apologetics on this subject than any “charismatic” that I’ve read. I am also having her to take Alan’s notes, and your other posts and collect them in a binder.

I fumbled the ball by not following through with Alan on this before; but, you Alan and I ought to seriously consider collaborating on a book together on this subject. Southern Baptists who lean toward our view I think would find it helpful. With the posts and notes we already have, putting together a book shouldn’t be that difficult for us.

Again, I really treasure fresh thoughts; and a unconventional way of thinking. You, Bob Cleveland, and I can vaguely recall Sam Storms having made a similar observation, have really challenged my belief that the Acts 2 tongues was evangelistic in purpose. That is as you know conventional thinking, but as I ponder the biblical text–what’s actually said–I am no longer sure that that view is absolutely supported by the text. When time permits, I am going to seriously do a study of that text in light of your question.

Thanks again for this wonderful post. May you produce many more. And, may your tribe increase.

It appears that the SBC has no unity on issues like soteriolgy or pneumatology(spiritual gifts). Why then do you think we could appreciate or be unified around the concept of a “city church,” although as I understand it, I believe that that concept is thoroughly biblical.

The various comments on these “three peat” posts leads me to believe that a book on this issue that reflects the clear, biblical, balanced, and within the framework of the BFM–as articulated by the likes of Alan & David R. is most desperately needed. I can’t recall a fairly recent or current book by SBC personalities that addresses these issues.

June 26, 2013 1:42 am

Don Johnson

Just to throw more gas on the fire, I’ll offer a different twist.

1. I’m with Mike and say there is no such thing as a PPL taught or mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

2. Paul was not rebuking a misuse of the gift of tongues. I believe it is impossible to misuse any spiritual gift.

3. A tongue speaker always knows what he is saying.

4. Th problem in Corinth was not the gift of tongues but the misuse of languages in the church by carnal christians.

1 Cor. 14:9-12. “So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.”

1 Cor. 14:13-14. “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.”

Spiritual gifts are not for self but for service to others in the Body of Christ.

Compare Praying in the Spirit (Jude) to Walking in the Spirit (Galatians) To being controlled by the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). To do any of these one must know and obey the Word of God – saturated with the Word (Colossians 3:15).

There is nothing taught in Scriptures concerning a “prayer language” and little to explain the use and benefit of an unlearned language. An assumption would be that not everyone could understand Greek or Latin in the Roman world being that most Christians were the uneducated poor and/or slaves.

June 25, 2013 8:51 pm

Frank L.

“””An assumption would be that not everyone could understand Greek or Latin in the Roman world being that most Christians were the uneducated poor and/or slaves”””

It seems that no assumption is necessary. The Roman Empire encompassed many different cultures, languages, and dialects as Acts 2 points out specifically.

What about 1Cor. 13:1. Seems pretty clear that there is are “angelic glossais.”

By the way, I’m only adding to the mix and I’m not trying to change your mind.

What does “tongues of angels” mean? Is Paul being “sarcastic” here? Is he talking about an “eloquence” of speech?
I am reminded that the Corinthian church was an immature and sinful church. Paul is not being gentle with them. They had many abuses happening in the church and the misuse of spiritual gifts was just one of the abuses.
I am also reminded of Paul’s commendation that they had “all” the gifts but that they were still so immature and sinful.
Exercising Spiritual gifts are not a reliable indicator of spiritual maturity.

June 26, 2013 12:54 am

Don Johnson

David,

Let’s suppose you speak Russian and I do not. You could speak as much Russian as you want, but to me you would simply be “speaking into the air.” Because you are speaking Russian to me you are a barbarian and I to you. Please note Paul said he did not know the language. He did not say the speaker did not know it.

“My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Again the text does not say the mind does not understand. It says it is unfruitful. What makes a person’s mind friutful is how it helps others. If a pastor studies for hours on a sermon and then decides to preach it in Greek, he may think he did a great job will all his learning, however his mind is unfruitful because no one knows what he said. Note vs. 16, it is always the other person that does not understand, it is never the speaker.

If the tongues speaker already understood what he/she was saying, why would they need to pray for the gift of interpretation, though?

June 25, 2013 10:09 pm

Don Johnson

David,

So the church may receive edifying (1 Cor 14:5). He already knows what he said, but the church does not. Also if the church is not edified because it does not understand what is said but at the same time the speaker is edified, it must mean the speaker understands what he said.

Why waste time and bring attention to oneself if one already knows what the Spirit is saying?
The gift of Languages we are discussing today is so subjective I don’t think there is anyway we could all agree on its meaning and use in the early Church, let alone today.
Maybe that is why it was not a point of discussion or general practice for almost 2000 years.

Back in1976, the silvery anniversary of the seminary and the 200th year of the nation, when I received my doctor of ministry, a fellow student who received his before me (alphabetical order) was noted by the other students for having the gift of prayer languages. he was a missionary to Israel. I never had the opportunity to speak with him about the matter, because I had lost interest in it years before. When I first started out in the Christian way, I looked at everything. As time passed and I grew more knowledgeable of Scripture and as usage and experience provided illustrations, I found that my interest, etc., in such things waned. Even though I am a Sovereign Grace believer today, my primary interest is not in making people believers in the doctrines of grace. My aim is the effect, the Awakening of the soul to Christ with profound implications for Christian living. I do know from the study of Scripture and from history that the doctrines of grace bear a direct relationship to the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions. That fact can be documented. It follows therefore that our interest in what the doctrines are should have as the primary concern the Glory of God and the humility of the recipients of God’s grace.